Bandecoot's reading of Acts 22:20-28

[Abigail]

The Verse that helped my understanding of the inaccuracy of the New Testement was acts 22 verses 20 through 25 (actually through 28).

The story of Paul and the Roman commander. In which a legion commander admits to a total stranger that he paid for his Citizenship.

Romans were a little touchy about citizenship. They went to war once over some of their allies falsely claiming citizenship. It's called the Social War.

There were a few ways to get Roman citizenship, serving in the Legions for 15 years, Being a freed slave, Being weathy and winning an election in a Latin Rights Town, Being born of 2 Roman parents was the most popular of course.

In order to buy citizenship one would have to bribe a Censor. Which is unlikley to happen.

What really flabbergasted me was that the writer of acts has a legion commander, probably a Tribune of the Soldiers thus of at least the Equestrian class, admits to a TOTAL stranger something that would have put him up on a cross in a trice. That just would never happen.

The above quote is by bandecoot on a thread in Naturalism. Firstly if the text is to be understood as Bandecoot suggests and the error so glaring as he makes out, one has to doubt whether Luke who has been shown to be accurate in his portrayal of these times would have included such an obvious inconsistency unless he knew it actually happened, so my guess is if bandecoot's reading of the text is right then it obviously did happen as Luke records.

Further the question that should also be asked is, is Bandecoot's reading of the passage correct ie is the commander confessing to Paul that he paid for his citizenship or is he covertly communicating to Paul that he is open to a bribe for Paul's freedom. Perhaps he is even trying to trap Paul into admitting that he got his citizenship by bribery. To me these two options could be reasonable senarios and especially in light of Paul's reply to the effect 'You dont understand I was born a citizen'

[themuzicman]

The above quote is by bandecoot on a thread in Naturalism. Firstly if the text is to be understood as Bandecoot suggests and the error so glaring as he makes out, one has to doubt whether Luke who has been shown to be accurate in his portrayal of these times would have included such an obvious inconsistency unless he knew it actually happened, so my guess is if bandecoot's reading of the text is right then it obviously did happen as Luke records.

Further the question that should also be asked is, is Bandecoot's reading of the passage correct ie is the commander confessing to Paul that he paid for his citizenship or is he covertly communicating to Paul that he is open to a bribe for Paul's freedom. Perhaps he is even trying to trap Paul into admitting that he got his citizenship by bribery. To me these two options could be reasonable senarios and especially in light of Paul's reply to the effect 'You dont understand I was born a citizen'

Perhaps "paid a heavy price" refers to serving for 15 years?

[Abigail]

Perhaps "paid a heavy price" refers to serving for 15 years?

yes, I hadnt thought of that

[Bill the Cat]

yes, I hadnt thought of that

The term is used of money normally.

Robertson's Word Pictures says:

The sale of the Roman citizenship was resorted to by the emperors as a means of filling the exchequer, much as James I. made baronets" (Page). Dio Cassius (LX., 17) tells about Messalina the wife of Claudius selling Roman citizenship. Lysias was probably a Greek and so had to buy his citizenship.


Bill

[Abigail]

The term is used of money normally.

the NASV has 'money' but the NIV just 'price'. My rpoblem is I dont know any Greek

The sale of the Roman citizenship was resorted to by the emperors as a means of filling the exchequer, much as James I. made baronets" (Page). Dio Cassius (LX., 17) tells about Messalina the wife of Claudius selling Roman citizenship. Lysias was probably a Greek and so had to buy his citizenship.


Bill

so it seems it's not so incredulous as bandecoot would have

[FirstSunday33ad]

Bandi is so very wrong here that I don't know where to begin:

1) The Social War: It was not about "allies" lying about being Romans. It was about people who were Romans in every sense of the word being excluded from the full benefits of citizenship because they weren't "from Rome". It was more a case of second-class citizens demanding recognition as full citizens.

2) Being a freed slave: Freed slaves - with extreme rarities - did not become citizens; they became freemen. Greeks were the most likely to be allowed to become citizens if they were once slaves, but in those cases they had to have performed some great service or proven themselves to be of great worth to the Republic/Empire.

3) Being wealthy; Did not automatically make you eligible for citizenship; but it did give you the opportunity to buy your citizenship through sponsoring festivals, supporting candidates and making large donations to the state.

4) would have put him up on a cross in a trice: Citizens could not be crucified. The only way this Tribune could have risked crucifixion would be if he were an escaped slave who bought his citizenship illegally. Then he would be first stripped of his office (requires a trial) then his citizenship (another trial) then his original master would have to renounce his right of ownership (another trial) and then he would be crucified (after yet another trial). This event would be so remarkable that historians would write about it for centuries afterwards (How is this known? There was just such an event in Roman history where an escaped slave rose to high office as a result of bribery).

5) There were a few ways to get Roman citizenship Bandi is forgetting by fiat: it is declared that the person has served Rome well and has earned the rights of citizenship. This left a HUGE loophole for bribery and was common knowledge.

There was no risk in the Tribune telling Paul that he paid a high price for his citizenship - he was boasting of his wealth and his connections and in a subtle way probing to see what wealth and connections Paul had. That Paul was born Roman would have shaken him to the soles of his feet as the reaction of the guards indicates.

[bandecoot]

Wonderful It only tok 4-5 posts to drag out the standard responses.

The sale of the Roman citizenship was resorted to by the emperors as a means of filling the exchequer, much as James I. made baronets" (Page). Dio Cassius (LX., 17) tells about Messalina the wife of Claudius selling Roman citizenship. Lysias was probably a Greek and so had to buy his citizenship

Have you read the preface to the Loeb? Dio was and is known as an embellisher of stories. Suetonius in Divi Claudius mentions only that Messalina was a wicked and shameful woman (Mali et Pudenda)Whose greatest crime was Bigamy! Suetonius was publishing other works during the rule of Claudius. You think he might mention this episode but he does not. Even in the safety of a change of principiates.

The other question to ask is "so far removed from events whom influenced whom?" Was Dio influenced by Christian stories to add this or were Christians influenced by Dio to add this

1) The Social War: It was not about "allies" lying about being Romans. It was about people who were Romans in every sense of the word being excluded from the full benefits of citizenship because they weren't "from Rome". It was more a case of second-class citizens demanding recognition as full citizens.

Lovely, a display of a lack of understanding of the Socii. Friends and allies of the Roman people with Latin rights status. This meant if they served the Empire in a suitable fashion they were granted full rights as Novus Homo Romanum. This could have been Legion or as a magistrate in a latin Rights town.

Such Culturocentrism on your part FS, you make it sound like people had a right to Be Romans. They had no such thing, they had what rights granted them by their conquerers.

2) Being a freed slave: Freed slaves - with extreme rarities - did not become citizens; they became freemen. Greeks were the most likely to be allowed to become citizens if they were once slaves, but in those cases they had to have performed some great service or proven themselves to be of great worth to the Republic/Empire.

Except that their Children were full citizens. You did know that? With A client relationship to the manumitting family.

3) Being wealthy; Did not automatically make you eligible for citizenship; but it did give you the opportunity to buy your citizenship through sponsoring festivals, supporting candidates and making large donations to the state.

Ah dont misquote me FS33AD thats a bad habit of your's deliberate misquoting. I said Being wealthy and holding a magistracy in a Latin Rights town.

4) would have put him up on a cross in a trice: Citizens could not be crucified. The only way this Tribune could have risked crucifixion would be if he were an escaped slave who bought his citizenship illegally. Then he would be first stripped of his office (requires a trial) then his citizenship (another trial) then his original master would have to renounce his right of ownership (another trial) and then he would be crucified (after yet another trial). This event would be so remarkable that historians would write about it for centuries afterwards (How is this known? There was just such an event in Roman history where an escaped slave rose to high office as a result of bribery).

Actually if he purchased his citizenship then he was not a citizen. He had no rights. The smoke and mirrors about slaves is just that.

He admitted to an offence against Quirinius and Vesta. The initial Punishment for the Socii was scourgeing and decapitation for the same crime.

5) There were a few ways to get Roman citizenship Bandi is forgetting by fiat: it is declared that the person has served Rome well and has earned the rights of citizenship. This left a HUGE loophole for bribery and was common knowledge.

Cites please, oh and do stick to first century sources please, what happen in Byzantuim 400 years later is of no import to THIS case.

There was no risk in the Tribune telling Paul that he paid a high price for his citizenship - he was boasting of his wealth and his connections and in a subtle way probing to see what wealth and connections Paul had. That Paul was born Roman would have shaken him to the soles of his feet as the reaction of the guards indicates.

Oh of course, A Tribune of the Soldiers, or Plebs, I have seen both used, would have been terrified of a Greek who claimed Roman citizenship via birth. In which alternate universe?

Have you looked at the requirements for service in that rank. At least second class rank for the former and first class but not senatorial for the latter.

Whoever wrote this fable (Acts 22) knew less about the Cursus honorum than you do FS33.

Lets look at my worst nightmare. We find this guy's life story and it seems he was an auxililliary, a Samnite in fact. He joins the Legions as a young man and works his way up the ranks, earning his citizenship after 15 years, to being an appointed Tribs mils. He still would have to have qualified for the property requiments for equestrian class or second class at the very least.

He would have no need to bribe anyone to gain citizenship. Military service was an accepted way to gain money and power. Look at Sulla, a Patrician by birth but with no money or land he can't even vote. Marius the opposite, rural family who gains money land and power through military service. To become Consul 6 times. There is even a common term for this Virs Militares. But even Sulla had to serve as an appointed quaestor to Marius in order to gain a senatorial place To gain some money you see.

In a normal Roman situation the guy was a 22- 28 yr old junior officer in the legions, his family was well off and had connections to the Flavians, he was advancing his carreer through service to Rome and making some loot out of it as well as possibly at some later time advancing his family up the economic ladder and the social one as well by making it to the Senate.

My take on this verse is that it attempts to paint Paul as pure and the Romans as venal reprobates who would sack Jerusalem. In other words an attempt to make Rome look bad to Christians.

One thing has been lost in FS33ad smoke and mirrors act. It was illegal to purchase citizenship ....and an officer in the Roman legions volunteers to a total stranger that he did so? Never happen in a milllion years.

[bandecoot]

Perhaps "paid a heavy price" refers to serving for 15 years?

Actually serving for 15 years would make him a pretty penny, he would have recieved a share of whatever loot was captured. On top of his wages. But it is a possiblity I would grant.

[Jaltus]

Of course the problem with Bande's objection is that it falls on deaf ears even in recent critical scholarship. Sorry, Bande, but most historians (at least that I have read) agree with FS.

For example, see Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship or Balsdon Romans and Aliens, both of which refer to the practice, especially under Claudius.

[Jaltus]

Actually serving for 15 years would make him a pretty penny, he would have recieved a share of whatever loot was captured. On top of his wages. But it is a possiblity I would grant.

Not really, the Greek allows only for money. ([greek]kefalaion[/greek])

[bandecoot]

Not really, the Greek allows only for money. ([greek]kefalaion[/greek])

Yes I know thus my point that service would have enriched him socially and financially. Not cost him money.

I just checked Salmon and Scullard for purchasing citizenship. No mention, in fact Salmon mentions policies to swell the ranks of the citizenship rolls via normal means. Cladius even Stripped a Greek of Citizenship because of poor Latin.

Nor do Boardman, Murray, Oswyn or Matthews agree with Sherwin -White.

But then there has been 66 years of additional study since he wrote the citizenship, 43 since he wrote "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament".

Feel free to disgree with me however. It matters not. I could post the section from my Thesis on the religious, economic and social importance of Roman citizenship complete with footnotes and bibliography and it would make no difference.

The literal inerrantists would insist that there was some other meaning. Those who know basic history would agree, shrug and say it's not a salvation issue.

Nothing will change. I have had this discussion twice before. This time it was mercifully short.

The point still remains. No Roman Officer, of any rank, would volunteer to complete stranger that he had broken a religious law regarding citizenship.

[Ryokan]

Alot of arguing over a minor issue, seems to me. Of course, I am not an agnostic or inerrantist.
Though, Bande, it seems to me the fact that some of the latin cities squeazed citizenship out Romans during the Social wars shows that even conquerora have to provide a level of care to those they conquer, or be very strong compared to them. Their protests gave them a right.

[Jaltus]

Feel free to disgree with me however. It matters not. I could post the section from my Thesis on the religious, economic and social importance of Roman citizenship complete with footnotes and bibliography and it would make no difference.

The literal inerrantists would insist that there was some other meaning. Those who know basic history would agree, shrug and say it's not a salvation issue.

Nothing will change. I have had this discussion twice before. This time it was mercifully short.

But this time I have done some of the same work that you have done. Don't forget, my dissertation covers Greco-Roman practices of religiousity, and citzenship is part of that.

Don't assume that inerrancy is all there is to it, I just think you are wrong in terms of your understanding of what happened in history. You discount one person who goes against you simply because he might be biased. You have not shown how the bias would play into him talking about citizenship being able to be bought, nor did you discuss how he could have a specific example of a person whom other historians mention and have it be false.

In other words, at least in this thread, I think your aprioris have run away with you.

The point still remains. No Roman Officer, of any rank, would volunteer to complete stranger that he had broken a religious law regarding citizenship.

That really depends upon the person, doesn't it? Though I do think it more likely that the officer is trying to play power games and failing.

[bandecoot]

But this time I have done some of the same work that you have done. Don't forget, my dissertation covers Greco-Roman practices of religiousity, and citzenship is part of that.

Don't assume that inerrancy is all there is to it, I just think you are wrong in terms of your understanding of what happened in history. You discount one person who goes against you simply because he might be biased. You have not shown how the bias would play into him talking about citizenship being able to be bought, nor did you discuss how he could have a specific example of a person whom other historians mention and have it be false.

In other words, at least in this thread, I think your aprioris have run away with you.

You forget that I did not bring this up. I could not care about this at all. I was just pointing out my opinion on the matter. I did so in an off the cuff manner in another section. Had I wished to start a thread on this. I would have just quoted the Loeb Translators preface. Which says that Dio is well known for embellishing a story to tittilate his readers. There is one Bias right there.

Unfortunately the value of his history is greatly diminished for us as the result of his blind devotion to two theories governing historical writing in his discovery. On the one hand a sense of the dignity and true value of history demanded that mere details and personal anecdotes should give place to the larger aspects and significance of events. On the other hand the historian was never to forget that he was at the same time a rhetorician; if the bare facts were lacking in effectiveness, they could be adorned, modified, or variously combined in the interest of a more dramatic presentation. These two principles, as applied by Dio, have resulted all too frequently in a somewhat vague, impressionistic picture of events, in which precisely those data which the modern historian eagerly looks for are either largely wanting or else blurred and confused. Thus names, numbers, and exact dates are often omitted; geographical details are scanty; and even the distinctive features of the various battles are passed over in great part in favour of rhetorical commonplaces, culled from Thucydides and other models, thus robbing the battles of all or much of their individuality. A good illustration of the transformation the facts could be made to undergo in the interest of these two theories is to be seen in his account of the conquest of Gaul. It is now generally recognized that there is nothing in this account which need imply an ultimate source other than Caesar's Commentaries; and yet, were it not for the familiar names, the reader might readily be excused for failing to recognize many of the events narrated, to such an extent has Dio shifted the emphasis on the facts and assigned new motives, while all the time striving to bring into bold relief the contrasts between the Gallic and the Roman character. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the speeches, which in Dio occupy a disproportionate amount of space (averaging one long speech or debate to the book), seem even farther removed from the realm of actual history than those of the ancient historians generally. The most famous of all these speeches, that of Maecenas to Augustus regarding the establishment of the monarchy, is in reality a political pamphlet setting forth Dio's own views of government, and parts of it are an anachronism in the mouth of Maecenas. Again, the speech which Dio makes Caesar deliver to his officers (not his troops) before the battle with Ariovistus has almost nothing in common with the address reported by Caesar himself.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/..._Dio/home.html

You know all this, why am I explaining it to you?

You must have had at least passing understanding of the Cursus Honorum and the economic and political classes into which Rome was divided.

If you missed the significance of Vesta and Quirinus to the basics of Rome as a culture, I really cant help you.

That really depends upon the person, doesn't it? Though I do think it more likely that the officer is trying to play power games and failing.

Power games? With a scruffy looking Greek?


The fact remains that no Roman officer would admit to a total stranger, that he had broken a religious law. You cannot deny that.

If You, jaltus, wish to discuss this in a one on one post ...I'm good with that. I have just had this discussion too many times with people who dont understand basics and wont even contenance learning them.

[FlimFlamboyant]

The fact remains that no Roman officer would admit to a total stranger, that he had broken a religious law. You cannot deny that.

There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, he most certainly can deny that. Assuming that Paul was not a Roman citizen (as this chief captain had assumed), it would have been Paul's word against his; no contest, especially in those days. He really wasn't risking anything. Secondly, if we assume that it can't be denied, there remains the second problem in that you cannot conclusively prove that Roman citizenship could not be purchased by legal means. There are more than enough reputable sources who disagree with you to call your assumption in to serious question.

PBS: The Roman Empire in the First Century

But in Rome, slavery had a remarkable feature: manumission. Roman owners freed their slaves in considerable numbers — either freeing them outright, or by allowing slaves to purchase their freedom. The prospect of possible manumission encouraged slaves to be obedient and efficient.

Freedmen

Formal manumission — performed and witnessed by a magistrate — bestowed full Roman citizenship upon a freedman, with the exception that a freedman could not hold public office. Under the law, any children born to freedmen after their manumission were also given the full rights of Roman citizenship, including the right to hold office.

© source where applicable

So in short, a man could purchase his freedom, then undergo a formal manumission to obtain his citenzship. That is, he may not have meant that he had purchased his citizenship directly at all; he may have simply bought his freedom, and then was granted citizenship some time later.

A little more info to chew on:

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - John Murray; 1875

LEX AE′LIA SE′NTIA. This law which was passed in the time of Augustus (about A.D. 3), chiefly regulated the manumission of slaves; a matter that has been put under certain restrictions in modern slave states also.
By one provision of this law slaves who had been put in chains by their masters as a punishment, or branded, or subjected to the other punishments mentioned in the law (Gaius, i.13), if they were afterwards manumitted either by the same master or another, did not become Roman citizens or even Latini, but were in the class of Peregrini dediticii. [Dediticii.] The law also made regulations as to the age of slaves who might be manumitted. It enacted that slaves under thirty years of age who were manumitted, only became Roman citizens when they were manumitted by the Vindicta, and after a legal cause for manumission had been established before a consilium. What was a legal cause (causa justa), and how the consilium was constituted, are explained by Gaius (Gaius, i.19, 20). These consilia for the manumission of slaves were held at stated times in the provinces, and in Rome. A slave under thirty years of age could become a Roman citizen if he was made free and heres by the testament of a master, who was not solvent (Gaius, i.21). The law also contained provisions by which those who were under thirty years of age at the time of manumission, and had become Latini in consequence of manumission, might acquire the Roman citizenship on certain conditions, which were these. They must have taken to wife a Roman citizen, or a Latina coloniaria or a woman of the same class as themselves, and must have had as evidence of that fact the presence of five Roman citizens of full age, and have begotten a son who had attained the age of one year. On showing these facts to the praetor at Rome, or to the governor in a province, and the magistrate declaring that the facts were proved, the man, his wife, and his child became Roman citizens. If the father died before he had proved his case before the magistrate, the mother could do it, and the legal effect was the same.

© source where applicable

In the end, there are far too many variables and unknowns for me to suspect that this record in Acts should be of any concern to me at all.